It’s a testament to the mixed signals of the Democratic Party on taxes and the end-of-the-year fiscal situation that Matt Yglesias can talk to the same Senator on the same weekend as I and get a completely different impression. He basically saw no appetite for letting the Bush tax cuts expire completely and then coming back with an “Obama tax cut” package, while I did, particularly from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse.
It is worth pointing out, however, that while Matt and I and others were reading tea leaves in Providence with Senators on the more liberal side of the spectrum, the ones more interested in using the fiscal slope as an opportunity to put together a massive deficit reduction package were making their move:
In an ornate room in the Capitol last Wednesday night, the Democratic senators who could hold the key to preventing a fiscal train wreck gathered for dinner and a talk with economists about their options for dealing with nearly $8 trillion in combined tax increases and spending cuts that are to be put in place automatically in January [...]
What separated the unannounced Wednesday session, organized by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, from the earlier ones was the collective weight of the participants: the Senate’s No. 2 and No. 3 Democrats, Richard J. Durbin of Illinois and Charles E. Schumer of New York; the chairman of the Finance Committee, Max Baucus; and the chairman of the Budget Committee, Kent Conrad.
This looks like Jeff Merkley’s worse nightmare coming to pass, with a top-level secret huddle rather than a public process. Max Baucus, who confirmed the meeting, also said that the Senate needs to not “box itself out” with legislation too quickly. Meaning that the meetings will continue in back rooms without public scrutiny. One Senator, Johnny Isakson (R-GA), said that even talking about the talks’ existence would be a problem.
Now, it does sound like Republicans weren’t involved in this meeting, suggesting that Democrats are largely formulating strategy, which would be welcome. The story also reports:
1) 35 Senators, in both parties, met last Tuesday with Robert Zoellick, the outgoing President of the World Bank, and Bill Dudley, the outgoing President of the NY Fed.
2) The Wednesday dinner included Mark Zandi and Robert Reischauer.
3) Jon Kyl still wants more than anything to avoid the defense trigger, and to the idea of using tax hikes to fill that space, he said “we think that’s a bad idea, but let’s sit down and talk.”
4) Baucus has a speech this week to the Bipartisan Policy Center where he’ll lay out some ideas on taxes. (UPDATE: That Baucus speech was today, and he called for more revenue from the tax code.)
5) Bob Corker (R-TN) will introduce a bill on taxes and safety net spending soon.
6) “Senate Democrats gathered on Thursday with Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, to look over polling on their political strength defending entitlements like Medicare and Social Security.”
7) An interesting paragraph that gets slipped in at the end, as either Mark Zandi’s plan or the Democratic plan discussed at the meeting:
But if the tax cuts are extended for households with incomes below $250,000, Medicare payments remain the same, the alternative minimum tax is kept at bay and the automatic spending cuts are cut in half, the economic hit could be held to 1.5 percentage points.
I assume that everything else would be left to expire, then, including the payroll tax cut and extended unemployment insurance. Sounds like a stance Zandi or some force in the party wants them to live with. You’ll notice that the $250,000 dividing line is in there, not Nancy Pelosi’s $1 million.
8) More Republicans talking about taxes, like Kyl and Lindsey Graham (the uber-hawkishness could bring them to the table here). But most important, here are REPUBLICANS accepting the Democratic strategy of the “Obama tax cuts”:
Other Republicans have quietly suggested that all of the Bush-era tax cuts would have to lapse temporarily. That way, reinstating most — but not all — of them would be scored as a tax cut, both by the Congressional Budget Office and by Americans for Tax Reform, a group led by Grover Norquist that is the keeper of the “no new taxes” pledge virtually every Republican has signed.
One senior Republican, speaking on the condition of anonymity to avoid crossing Mr. Norquist, said that as the deadline approached, the “pledge” would be dwarfed by the “cliff.”
“You look at what’s getting ready to happen, a $5 trillion tax increase, nobody wants that to happen,” the senator said. “The pledge becomes irrelevant on Dec. 31.”
It takes Republicans to figure out a Democratic strategy on taxes. I happen to disagree that the Clinton tax rates were too high, and I would want to sunset the Obama tax cuts as well. But at least someone figured a way out of Norquist’s box: Republicans.
Now, none of this means that we’ll see higher-than-Bush tax rates come 2013. In fact, if it’s true that Wall Street lobbyists are getting involved, look out. But I know that, when people talked about letting all of the tax cuts expire in 2010, nobody in Washington will touch it. Now they’re at least coming around to the idea.




16 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Why is Zandi being listened to? He certainly doesn’t have the history of correct analysis to buttress his prognostications.
“But while believing the economy doesn’t need more fiscal stimulus, Zandi is worried that it can’t handle austerity, something that’s very much on the table in the ongoing debate over the debt ceiling.”; egads.
All posturing and maneuvering. Obama wants to gut the safety net. He wants Simpleton-Bowels. And what Pinocchio wants, Pinocchio gets.
David Dayen–
Could you please elaborate on this bullet point, please:
5) Bob Corker (R-TN) will introduce a bill on taxes and safety net spending soon.
Thanks–
Blue
P.S. Beach Populist–Glad you took my teasing, as it was intended.
No problem. They say that misery loves company, and those of us who feel miserable about the sellouts in the PINO/DINO community have lots of company!
not directly on the subject but related.
re: reduction in American military spending.
not likely no matter what happens.
they want to keep the military in place, to fufill it’s role in establishing corporate control at the various countries that are able/needed to satisfy their needs for customers, resources, and labour.
It’s so obvious. and sickening.
that’s what the American military is used for. that’s why it can’t be cut. In it’s present bloated from it has nothing whatsoever to do with defending the USA.
and it will not be part of any deal they make.
Increasing taxes without a matching increase in spending will take money out of the economy. Anyone who thinks it is a good idea to take money out of the economy in a balance sheet recession doesn’t understand economics.
I’d be fine with letting the Bush tax cuts expire as long as we increase spending to match. The budget deficit needs to be larger, not smaller.
http://strubelim.com/wp/the-problem-with-the-deficit-its-not-big-enough/
Hey Beach ,Bowles told Charley Rose that Obama spurned BS because he wished to make far deeper cuts in entitlements after re-election .Amazing self-confidence eh ?
Why the dividing line for the Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich below $250,000?
If they’re reall tax cuts for the rich, they should all expire.
As it appears right now, it is Obama (through his voluntary extension of Bush tax cuts for the wealthy) and Clinton (was last week’s drama not enough to notice what Bill Clinton really wants) who are more married and vested into the tax cuts for the wealthy than even the GOP. Your supposed liberal- progressive current and former Democratic presidents on the forefront to fight for the middle class. Long live the “Modern” Democratic party – hey its a party but only the top 1% are invited.
Yes.you are exactly right.
Why in the world can’t Americans ever realize that when you elect super wealthy people to political office,they are going to do what’s best for ‘em & not you & I,poor people.
Dianne Feinstein,Pelosi,Kerry,Gillerbrand & Warner etc,etc as a matter of fact almost everyone in the Dem party in leadership is wealthy.
You think somehow through the kindness of their iron heart they care about ordinary peoples’ welfare ?
That’s the Obama way – claim to want transparency and saying you’ll broadcast negotiations on CSPAN, then when the rubber meets the road going into some backroom to cut a deal out of the public eye.
“…. Obama spurned BS because he wished to make far deeper cuts in entitlements …”
This is why Obama is a scarier prospect than Romney. Democrats will at least pretend to be opposed to such a move from Romney.
You managed to get three world-class creeps into one sentence. (Bowles, Rose, and Pinocchio.)
BTW, in case you didn’t know, Rose is one the attendees at this year’s Bilderberg Caucus of the Corrupt.
ETA: And it was either David or Jane who pointed out months ago that Simpleton-Bowels would be established as the left parameter of the debate, than any negotiated compromise would be farther to the right.
Obama: Most evil person ever to reside in the White House. Pure evil on a fiendish scale.
Exactly:
* Increased demand (money in the pockets of consumers) is how we end this depression.
* Government spending is how we prime that pump.
* Increased taxation is how we keep that spending from causing inflation.
* Letting the Bush tax cuts expire is how we raise taxes in a way that the GOP can’t stop.
* And if we keep those taxes in place the deficit will magically melt away.
Hey Beach@13 ,I hate to be a stickler ,but actually it was four hunks of human sewage.Don’t forget Simpson .
Dayen why do you use the languange of these liars so reliably in everything you write? “Deficit reduction” is a lie..I dont think any reasonable, honest person thinks that “deficit reduction” is a goal of these idealogues.. and anyway most sane economists believe deficit reduction is not only not-needed, but that it would be a mistake now.